Rebutting Rex
An anonymous poster on Public Address called “Rex” has posted a lengthy diatribe on why all the officials are wrong, and why Labour did nothing wrong. The fact it is anonymous speaks for itself (I could understand the need to be anonymous if one was attacking the Gopvt, but not for defending it), but in case anyone takes silence as agreement, here’s a few flaws in Rex’s argument.
“None of the relevant watchdogs (including the Auditor-General, the Solicitor-General, and the Chief Electoral Officer) had, after previous elections, declared such spending “electioneering” – the Auditor-General had never declared the spending unlawful; the Chief Electoral Officer had never counted such spending towards party election campaign limits”
This spin overlooks the obvious reality. That said authorities were totally unaware that the pledge cards had been funded out of taxpayer funds, and that they were not included in their election returns.
I have absolutely no doubt the Chief Electoral Officer would regard the previous pledge cards as an election expense. But the system relies on the political parties including them in their return. Labour never included them, so they were never picked up.
Likewise the Auditor-General does not generally look at every payment made by Parliament. They do a small random sample generally. Hence again the AG had no idea the pledge card had previously been funded by the taxpayer.
Most of Rex’s argument rests on the fact previous pledge cards were deemed legal and not electioneering. This is absolutely not the case. The Chief Electoral Officer and Auditor-General were almost certainly unaware about previous pledge cards. And both gentleman warned Labour (one specifically and one generally) before the election about their spending.
“The second major problem with the result of yesterday’s events is that the scope of the Brady report is arbitrary. Brandishing his wide definition of “electioneering”, Brady has picked on only one type of Parliamentary spending (advertising) and focused on only one, specific period of time (the three months before the 2005 general election).”
Rex now follows the Helen Clark tactis or arguing this definition means almost all expenditure is electioneering. He overlooks the AG several times refers to proximity to an election being a key factor. Something m,ay be fine a year before an election but not fine the week before the election.
“Indeed, if Labour’s pledge card expenditure in 2005 was unlawful, then so was its pledge card expenditure in 1999 and 2002, and so was much activity undertaken by National in previous election cycles (including the English pledge pamphlet in 2002). Why should only this most recent advertising expenditure be paid back, but not that from previous elections? Why should Labour be landed with the bill for the 05 pledge card, and National not be landed with the bill for its 02 pledge pamphlet? How is that fair and consistent?”
Rex is correct that all of Labour’s pledge cards would have been illegal. The interesting thing about the 2002 English pledge card is I honestly can’t even recall it. It was certainly not a centrepiece of the election campaign and I suspect the costs was less than 10% what Labour”s 2005 one was.
But anyway Rex only needs to turn to the AG’s report for his answers. His June 2005 report was designed to serve as a warning, and after he saw behaviour had not changed he did a full review for those three months after the warning. And he has not demanded any money be repaid – the public has.
“That’s close to $50 million of taxpayer funding in each of the past few election years. If we’re to take the Brady report seriously, the vast majority of this would have been used for ‘electioneering’ as the Auditor-General has defined it, is thus unlawful spending, and thus should be paid back.”
This is nonsense. For a start National showed that even in an election campaign a party can have less than 10% of it’s spending as “electioneering”. And the AG has said that fruther back from the election, less material will be seen as electioneering.
“If the Auditor-General is serious about ensuring that taxpayer money appropriated for parliamentary purposes has not been used for electioneering (in his broad definition), then he should be seeking to root out all unlawful expenditure and demanding repayment.”
“The reason to pick on National in my above examples is that it has undertaken a cynical, hypocritical campaign to pretend that it is purer than pure and Labour is blacker than black when it comes to using taxpayer funding for electioneering purposes.”
The facts are 8% of National’s expenditure was found to be illegal, while 66.1% of Labour’s was unlawful. To try and argue this is the same level of compliance is silly.
“Which leads us to the nub of National’s credibility problem. If it genuinely accepts the Auditor-General’s definition of “electioneering”, then it has to accept that it has unlawfully spent millions (if not tens of millions) of taxpayer money over many election cycles. It should now proceed to pay the money back. If it genuinely believes the rules were clear, and that they were to be interpreted as the Auditor-General has interpreted them, then it needs to be signing an awfully large cheque to taxpayers. Of course, National will never do this, nor will the media demand that it pay this money back. But that doesn’t make its position any less craven or any less hypocritical.”
Rex’s use of craven, cynical and hypocritical against National suggest his claim not to be partisan to be somewhat untrue.
“First, the Auditor-General acted unprofessionally. While his report says that it was ‘unhelpful’ that some of his provisional findings were leaked to the media, he allowed himself to be dragged into the public debate.”
The answer here is simple. Helen and helpers disgracefully lied and misrepresented the draft report. They painted him (as Rex does) as some sort of lunatic out of touch with reality. If Labour had not attacked his draft report with such ferocity, I am sure he would not have felt the need to clarify it. The fault is entirely with the politicians who used the media to attack him. You can’t cry foul when your victim answers back.
October 15th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
Those saying Labour broke the law:
1) The Auditor-General
2) The Solicitor-General
3) The Chief Electoral Officer
4) The Electoral Commission
5) The Police (even if they didn’t prosecute)
Those saying Labour didn’t break the law:
1) Labour
2) Chapman Tripp
3) “Rex”
Don’t knows (or haven’t been asked):
1) Russell McVeegh
2) Kensignton Swan
3) Phillips Fox
4) Buddle Finlay
etc etc etc
On balance, I think the first group are more credible than the second and I don’t see why we should take a paper from one private sector law firm as gospel, especially when we do not know what its brief was. Ask a different firm, get a different answer.
October 15th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
Even, and it is a huge “even”, if one was to accept that the lines surrounding election v non-election expenditure are blurred to try and argue that the Pledge Card – a central plank of Labour’s campaign – is anything but electioneering is an absolute nonsense.
October 15th, 2006 at 3:05 pm
If “Rex” is a public servant the article would have to be posted anonymously. SSC’s guidelines make it very clear that publically supporting the govt is as inappropriate as attacking them.
October 15th, 2006 at 3:12 pm
He does have one strong point though. Why is it that all of this rabid publicity is about precisely one kind of election-related spending (advertising) while others (flights, staff resources) paid out of public funds are being ignored? If you want to have an honest conversation about the use of public money in funding election campaigns surely all types of spending should be included, not just spending on advertising activities?
October 15th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
err – it’s simple – an advertisement can be easily classified as including electioneering or not. A staff member’s time is far far more complex than an advert. There are indeed certain things staff can not do on the taxpayer payroll, but there is no way you can audit every minute of their time. Likewise suggesting an MP has to account for every single phone call they make out of the 1,000+ per month.
It is a fallacy that just because you can’t apply a dividing line in some areas, that you don’t have a dividing line in any area.
October 15th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
David if you want to speak for the AG you should apply for the job: hint you wont get it.
“Likewise the Auditor-General does not generally look at every payment made by Parliament. They do a small random sample generally. Hence again the AG had no idea the pledge card had previously been funded by the taxpayer
October 15th, 2006 at 5:07 pm
err – it’s simple – an advertisement can be easily classified as including electioneering or not. A staff member’s time is far far more complex than an advert. There are indeed certain things staff can not do on the taxpayer payroll, but there is no way you can audit every minute of their time. Likewise suggesting an MP has to account for every single phone call they make out of the 1,000 per month.
It is a fallacy that just because you can’t apply a dividing line in some areas, that you don’t have a dividing line in any area.
October 15th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
So National can spend taxpayer money on electioneering, as long as they can be sufficiently ambiguous about it?
Even if none of the non-advertising spending was as blatantly electioneering as the pledge cards, I’d bet some of it would be more easily classified than the Green Party’s newsletters.
October 15th, 2006 at 5:15 pm
If there is no way to quantify staff time, phone calls, other non-advertising material in terms of its electioneering content, your claim that the election was “stolen” rests entirely on the advertising material. But there is equally no way to quantify the extent to which advertising material influenced votes.
If it were true that that the amount of money spent on advertising translates directly into votes, then National should have won, given the huge amount that the EBs spent on advertising towards that end.
The reality is that National didn’t win the election because some of the voting public were turned off by Brash’s murky association with the EBs; because of the threat his negative rhetoric about Maori posed to race relations; and because they followed an FPP strategy in an MMP environment.
All the spin about “stolen elections” is an attempt to avoid responsibility for that.
October 15th, 2006 at 5:37 pm
I’d love to know if Steven Joyce – Nationals Campaign Manager – had his salary paid for out of the leaders fund. Anyone know for sure?
October 15th, 2006 at 5:47 pm
“It is a fallacy that just because you can’t apply a dividing line in some areas, that you don’t have a dividing line in any area.”
Right, but it’s also a fallacy that just because you’re more subtle about your offending that you’re somehow less guilty of said offence. National have been making an awful lot of noise about this particular issue, flinging words like “corrupt” around. The main thrust of Rex’s argument appears to be that they are more than likely making these allegations from a position of having done much of the same themselves, albeit a little less publically, and therefore their accusations are a self-serving political beat-up, not any kind of principled stand.
October 15th, 2006 at 6:07 pm
I left out another important reason why National didn’t win the 2005 election: the voting public didn’t have a clear idea what their policies were. They still don’t, as Richard Prebble noted in his column this weekend.
October 15th, 2006 at 6:25 pm
I’m sure policy or a perception of a lack of it may have been an influence for some voters.
My own view is that we don’t actually vote in a new government, we vote the incumbent out. And last election there was insufficient apathy about, or anger towards Helen’s mob… so they managed to cling on.
I’m fully expecting both parties to move towards the centre in an attempt to secure up swinging votes at the centrist-edges of their respective voter domains. Coalition partners (or lack thereof) will be Don’s problem. Helen’s problems are likely to be a little closer to home, with one or two of her own team who have played second fiddle for too long looking to promote themselves to conductor.
October 15th, 2006 at 6:35 pm
You get the same sort of bleating with sex offenders. They sexually abuse people for years and finally someone has the courage to make a complaint often years after it has happened becuase the complainants cannot face the shame of the past. But juries convict them and they go screaming to the cells protesting their innocence. The Labour Party mentality is exactly the same. They got away with it time and time again and refuse to see they have done something wrong.
October 15th, 2006 at 6:36 pm
Richard Prebble also said, “To spend your money promoting policies you oppose is wrong.”
WFF and free student loans, tax payer funded electioneering, or policy?
October 15th, 2006 at 6:45 pm
david…instead of just going “boo-boo!”..
what about an attempt at a rebuttal of what ‘rex’ says..(which makes sense..as read..).?
of note is the description of nationals’ stance/attitude around this isssue to be one of ‘..breathtaking hypocrisy..’..
another (questioning) factor..(noted by redrag)..is the rod donald one…
in that rod drove/oversaw the reform of those rules/regulations…
and it begs disbelief that he got it ‘so wrong’…in that period before the election..
and that all except the (pre-briefed) national got it so wrong…
this..
rexs’ points..
and the history of nationals’previous election spending…(has anyone from national ever told us just what is the difference between labours’ and their ‘pledge-cards’..?
or is that another of those questions you just avoid/swerve around..?..)
these all lead me more and more to conclude that there are definite uncertainties around these ‘new’ lines in the sand…around election funding..
it all reeks of that nasty beast..’surprise retrospective’..in this case on previously accepted (by all parties) rules/guidelines..
and a political/national scam/dirty trick..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 15th, 2006 at 7:08 pm
David young fellow my lad ,could you or any other wingnuts tell me,did Mr English have a Nazional party pledge card paid for by the taxpayer prior to the 2002 elction.Yes or no .Simple really,yes or no?
October 15th, 2006 at 7:18 pm
Isn’t Rex a dogs name, probably another one of Dear Leaders poodles.
October 15th, 2006 at 7:27 pm
oh..!..yet another example of the scintillating/sparkling (always intelligent) wit of side show bob…
(isn’t he just such a treasure..?…)
some actually call him “ad hominem bob’..?
but i dunno…whattayareckon..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 15th, 2006 at 7:39 pm
phil, you’re dribbling again. The next batch of polls will tell the story. My prediction is Jordan will have difficulty finding a silver lining.
October 15th, 2006 at 7:40 pm
Wont it all be so wonderfully ironic, after all National bleating about stolen elections and overspends, when the leaked emails are released that show direct collusion between the National campaign team and the Exclusive Brethren, and the 1.2 mil they spent will have to be added to Nationals overall spend pushing them over the cap?
Then we can have this discussion about breeching the spending cap bud.
And don’t think that they wont surface, they are coming and there will be a world of pain.
October 15th, 2006 at 8:14 pm
adolf..perhaps you can clarify that for us…?
the difference between helens’ card..and bills’ card..?
(apart from being three years apart..?..)
and i wouldn’t get too excited about the polls..adolf
(and make sure you add up the whole centre-left vote..won’t you..?..)
and you’ve got.?.as your best-case scenario..?..the brilliantined one…(act’ll be gone..we all know that..)
bit depressing..eh..?..best-case scenario key and winnie…?
(but i reckon winnies’ just feckin’ with yer heads…again…)
and then of course there’s the soon to disapppear funding for you…
but back to the main question..
what makes helens’ card ‘corrupt’..?
and bills’ one…’non-corrupt’..?
(hard to tell from here….eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 15th, 2006 at 8:23 pm
Danyl – Steven was employed by the party as general manager and campaign manager and during his time in those roles was paid for by the party only (as has been the case for every party chief executive). Where do you guys invent these things?
Cosmos – I know how audits work. It is pure Labour spin that the AG knew about and authorised the previous cards.
Realist – you need to read what I said. I never said advertising is the only influence. Beyond doubt thought it does have influence – a hell of a lot. And I have not yet called the election stolen – I have said one can not rule out that the $800,000 changed the result.
October 15th, 2006 at 8:38 pm
david…still not answering that what is the differences between helens”corrupt’ card..
and bills’ ‘non-corrupt one..?
(and hey..’soul deep’ is on prime..
james brown…ow..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 15th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
phil – both helen and bill’s cards were wrong (being abuses of taxpayers’ funds) but only helen’s are corrupt, because only helen exceeded the overall spending limit, and thus breached S214B of the Electoral Act. hope this clarifies.
October 15th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
Phil: And what is the difference between Labour’s reliance on Philip Field’s vote and National’s reliance on, um … hang on, I’ll get back to you once I’ve thought of something similar.
October 15th, 2006 at 8:44 pm
So what did National spend its taxpayer funds on? Given how broad the definition of electioneering has become, just about any spending would be suspect.
October 15th, 2006 at 9:14 pm
It’s really, really simple guys.
as RK says
either the Auditor-General, Solicitor General, Wellington CID, Chief Electoral Officer, The Speaker; Matt McCarten; Mike Moore; Margaret Pope; the Police; Crown Law Office; Jim Bolger; Richard Prebble; Matthew Palmer
are corrupt
or Labour is corrupt.
We canot hold fresh elections if labour is permitted to take part;
while the maorimander remains in place;
before the spending rules have been clarified.
The Labour MPs must be dismissed; the leaders jailed;
and a new PM appointed to clean up the mess. Immediately.
October 15th, 2006 at 9:42 pm
i recon that critisising someone who says something your think is stupid confirms in everyone else’s mind that your are what you criticise.
.. or more simply :
slander the speaker and join them on your own pond-scum scale.
a little sunday philosophy for y’all… cos there nothing on TV tonight
October 15th, 2006 at 9:45 pm
Farrar,
And I have not yet called the election stolen – I have said one can not rule out that the $800,000 changed the result.
What’s that got to do with anything. Labour overspent by 1.2Mil.
Therefore the election is bought.
That’s corruption, doesn’t matter what they spent it on or how well it was used or whatever. If they spent putting up Monty Python billboards it’s still corrpt and that means the election was bought.
The only two reasons we have the govt we do are:
* corrupt spending
* maorimander
October 16th, 2006 at 12:48 am
OK, and the otara/mangere operation (*aka field)
October 16th, 2006 at 3:54 am
“err – it’s simple – an advertisement can be easily classified as including electioneering or not. A staff member’s time is far far more complex than an advert. There are indeed certain things staff can not do on the taxpayer payroll, but there is no way you can audit every minute of their time. Likewise suggesting an MP has to account for every single phone call they make out of the 1,000+ per month.” — DPF
“The Solicitor-General advised me that, if an item of expenditure has both a parliamentary purpose and an electioneering purpose, I am entitled to take the view that it falls outside the permitted scope of the appropriation.” — Kevin Brady
October 16th, 2006 at 6:32 am
Mausie – I would say that a phone bill is not one item of expendituer, but several hundred. So sure if one can track individual phone calls, then any individual phone call which is part electioneering could be deemed needed to be refunded. I doubt many phone calls would be classified as electioneering and the cost of trying to track every individual one would far outweigh any savings.
But hey if the Auditor-General decides that Helen has to give up her phone and all her press secretaries, so be it – she has more than anyone else!
October 16th, 2006 at 7:14 am
David
But hey if the Auditor-General decides that Helen has to give up her phone and all her press secretaries, so be it – she has more than anyone else!
The A-G has decided Helen must give all this up:
because the report says quite clearly she has committed corupt and illegal practices.
It’s just not up to him to make that judgement:
he appreciates that “two wrongs don’t make a right”
under the strange constitutional arrangements currently being ignored by the government – that judgement is to be made by the PM herself; and now her cabinet ministers.
IF Labour had been operating withing the Westminster conventions, she would have resigned as soon as the Cheif Electoral Officer deemed her corrupt
At which point – though few people noticed it a the time – NZ has been operating outside its consitutional parameters.
This situation is one more thing that an interim administration needs to remedy before NZ can have another election,
October 16th, 2006 at 7:30 am
C’mon David, saying that our overspending can’t be quantified (i.e. staff, travel, etc) but theirs clearly can is a weak basis to take the moral high ground.
October 16th, 2006 at 7:32 am
Hello folks. RB here. “Rex” has asked me to post the following rebuttal to David’s original post. I’m sure he could have found a way to do so anonymously, but in the spirit of argument, here it is (PS: David, it’s a bit rich be getting precious about people posting polemic under pseudonyms isn’t it?):
—
1. I did not argue “all the officials are wrong”. Rather, I argued that all those people who were involved in creating and administering the system over many years (all the political parties on the Parliamentary Service Commission; and the apolitical Parliamentary Service) believed a narrow definition of “electioneering” was in effect for the purposes of Parliamentary expenditure. The Solicitor-General, the Auditor-General (and, belatedly, National) believed a much wider one was. On this score, the Parliamentary Service, Labour, the Greens, United, NZ First, and Act all believed the narrow definition was the law. And what political parties believed to be the law is important – both because they wrote it, and because you can’t say Labour are “thieves” unless you think they breached the law knowingly.
2. It may be true that the said watchdogs were not aware the pledge card had been publicly funded in 99 and 02. But the fact that no-one had queried this spending in previous elections is relevant in determining what Labour believed to be the law when it decided to fund its pledge card with taxpayer money in 05. Moreover, I find it very hard to believe that these authorities did not know that all the other material caught by the Auditor-General’s wide definition of electioneering (including public meeting notices, regular newsletters, and targeted letters – the stuff that has the Greens, United Future, and NZ First in the gun) was not publicly funded. In the case of the meeting notices, they were in newspapers up and down the country and had big Parliamentary crests on them. If all such spending in previous elections had been unlawful, then it would be reasonable to expect some watchdog to have picked at least some of it up.
3. On lots of other Parliamentary expenditure in 99, 02 and 05 being unlawful under the AG’s definition, Farrar argues that proximity to the election is important in determining whether something is electioneering. Quite true. That’s why I focused on election-year expenditure. I stand by my claim that the vast majority of the spending I identified (around $50 million per election year) would have been spent on electioneering, as the AG defined it, in each of the last few election years. Farrar has not touched my claim that the salaries of Richard Long, Peter Keenan, and other National staffers (research, media, strategy) were electioneering under the AG’s definition; or that Don Brash’s cellphone bills were; or that his airfares were; and so on. Does Farrar accept the AG’s definition or not? If he does, does he believe the expenditure I have identified: a) falls outside it; or b) shouldn’t be paid back because no officials have looked into it yet? All he says about the English pledge pamphlet is that he doesn’t remember it. Well, that doesn’t make it any less unlawful under the AG’s definition. Why isn’t National offering to pay it back – and why isn’t Farrar demanding that it does so? Don’t taxpayers deserve their money back? These aren’t rhetorical questions: either you think an important principle is at stake, or you don’t. If we are to take Farrar’s (and Brash’s) moralitic intonings on this issue seriously, then they should be looking into past expenditure, fessing up where mistakes were made, and remedying it through reimbursement of the taxpayer. Anything less and we are left to wonder whether the “pay it back” campaign was not about legality, but rather about politics.
4. “The facts are 8% of National’s expenditure was found to be illegal, while 66.1% of Labour’s was unlawful. To try and argue this is the same level of compliance is silly.” Farrar is misunderstanding my point. The AG found that 8% of National’s expenditure *on advertising* was unlawful, not 8% of all its Parliamentary expenditure. National spent $130,000 of Parliamentary money on advertising in the three months the AG examined. Overall in the 04/05 and 05/06 financial years (both of which take in the election year under examination), National had around $7.2 million to spend on “Party and Member support”, which can be spent on advertising/communications, as well as the salaries of spin doctors, researchers, political strategists and the like. (We can conservatively assume just over half of this – perhaps around $4 million – was spent by National during election year.) So, the crucial question for National to answer is: what did it spend the remaining several million dollars on? How much of this would have been deemed electioneering by the AG, if he had examined it? If National accepts this issue is so important, and calls into question the legitimacy of our electoral system, then it ought to be opening up its books, and paying back any expenditure that falls within the AG’s definition. Why does Farrar not believe National is under any obligation to do this?
5. “Rex’s use of craven, cynical and hypocritical against National suggest his claim not to be partisan to be somewhat untrue.” My biographical note said I was not associated with any political party. That is true.
6. On my criticism of the AG speaking publicly as “unprofessional”, Farrar says Brady was simply defending himself against aggressive politicians. I agree that political parties should not have attacked Brady in the way they did. I said as much in calling Labour’s handling of the issue “ham-fisted, almost suicidal”. However, Brady getting into a tit-for-tat with politicians was unwise and unprofessional (though perhaps understandable). He should have let his report speak for itself.
“Rex”
October 16th, 2006 at 7:48 am
Tim: You get the same sort of bleating with sex offenders. They sexually abuse people for years and finally someone has the courage to make a complaint often years after it has happened becuase the complainants cannot face the shame of the past.
How tasteful, Tim. But you might want to be careful with that metaphor. Logically, that would make National the historical sex abuser who hasn’t been caught and is in denial.
Cheers,
RB
October 16th, 2006 at 7:56 am
Russell:
Um, this is getting simply bizarre. And while you’re accusing anyone of being ‘precious’, perhaps you can explain why ‘Rex’ is asking you to be post his comments on this blog for him. Sorry, but it’s pretty hard to take seriously someone using you as a sock puppet. And if you and Rex want to play it that way, fine; but don’t be too surprised if you’re starting out with a credibility deficit.
Rex wrote:
However, Brady getting into a tit-for-tat with politicians was unwise and unprofessional (though perhaps understandable). He should have let his report speak for itself.
Um, so Brady should have just kept quiet while Helen Clark claimed an unnamed ‘party leader’ (conveniently nameless) told her than Brady recommended validating legislation – which was not only highly improper, but directly contradicted public statements he’d made to the contrary? And I have no idea what you do for a living, but if you’re a civil servant you should be extremely sensitive to any allegations that you’re not only politically biased, but actively colluding with political parties to (in effect) bring down the Government of the day.
October 16th, 2006 at 7:58 am
Labour need to clean the dirt out of their own pit instead of whining on about National all the time.
October 16th, 2006 at 8:09 am
“However, Brady getting into a tit-for-tat with politicians was unwise and unprofessional (though perhaps understandable). He should have let his report speak for itself.“
Which is exactly what he has allowed to happen – unlike the other reports that have come out against this Government and its officials that have been criticised and misquoted before their release to the point that the report is confused by the time it comes out. Brady was actually willing to come out and point out that the Prime Minister was lying about what his report and he were saying.
Let us repeat that again for the Labourites out there: Forget the content of the report, even forget about the mis-spending fighting that is going on, what is your defence this time for another direct on the record lie by a Labour official (the PM again…) regarding a report.
This in itself should be brought up again by the MSM in more light than the mis-spending allegations themselves. Labour has shown in its reactions to the investigations and reports their level of corruption which is truely frightening.
October 16th, 2006 at 8:12 am
I guess Russells point is that DPF links to anonymous content all the time without seeing the need to pass comment on the authors need for secrecy. In the post immediately preceding this one he links to a Dom-Post editorial with no by-line and Generation XY post written by someone called ‘kiwibloke’.
October 16th, 2006 at 8:48 am
If Russell is now championing an opinion piece by an anonymous Government lackey then Public Address is really getting desperate in its all-consuming need to constantly spout how wonderful Labour is. Is PA going to have a weekly diatribe from anonymous posters from now on or is this a one off?
October 16th, 2006 at 9:30 am
Danyl Mclauchlan wrote:
In the post immediately preceding this one he links to a Dom-Post editorial and Generation XY post written by someone called ‘kiwibloke’.
Daryl, what a truly fatuous equation. The identities of the editor and senior editorial staff of the Dominion Post are matters of public record, and I’d also note that Russell frequently links to anon-bloggers like No Right Turn’s Idiot/Savant. But even Russell freely admits he very seldom – if ever – allows anonymous guest posts to Public Address, and no regular contributors have done so under pseudonyms.
As I’ve said elsewhere, Public Address is Russell’s patch of vitual real estate and he’s entitled to publish whatever he likes and wear the consequences. But pardon me if I find it a little hard to place much credibility in someone attacking Kevin Brady’s credibility from behind a pseudonym, and it gets simply bizarre when RB is sock puppeting Rex’s comments here. That’s just bizarre.
October 16th, 2006 at 9:44 am
so..is public address to the left (sorta)..?
as kiwiblog/farrar is to the right..?
(both partisan/agenda driven..?)
..and should both (once and for all) give up any pretences to independant/inquiring thought/ideas..?
our two ‘gate-keepers’..?…eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 16th, 2006 at 10:14 am
David Farrar does not in the least try to conceal the fact that this is a partisan blog. He is an outspoken National Party supporter and makes no attempt to pretend otherwise.
This contrasts sharply with Public Address. Its a nest of lefty propagandists pretending to objectivity. (Just like NZ’s mainstream media actually.)
David Farrar is not engaging in this kind of cheap cowardly deceit.
Its a strange thing about leftists. They seem so incapable of accepting their own partisanship, and so often write here as if their adjudications on matters political are examples of the most perfect objectivity. When they never are. This strange delusion, deep in the leftist psyche, is what makes so many of their comments so utterly worthless.
October 16th, 2006 at 10:22 am
I wonder if this allegation of ‘corruption’ against labour will work for Brash in the same way that his accusations against Clark for disrespecting the institution of marriage did for him.
If it were put through a court of law (which I believe it is), then it would get nowhere. There are too many hooks and sinkers.
The higher they climb the harder they fall. Clark has taken her fall for being so arrogant. She will no doubt now do whatever is within her power to do whatever harm she can to the accusers.
More’s the pity for the hapless Brash.
October 16th, 2006 at 10:40 am
Redbaiter you are much better when you thrashing about splattering ridiculous hyperbole. The moment you start getting serious you reveal yourself for the dimwitted tool you no doubt are in real life.
October 16th, 2006 at 10:43 am
Rex completely misses the most important principle at stake here:
These aren’t rhetorical questions: either you think an important principle is at stake, or you don’t.
That is true: the principle is when one, let alone three, independent parlimentary watchdogs calls the a PM and party leader; calls an election campaign cabinet; and ultimately an entire election result corrupt — then those people, cabinet, or government must resign
That is the most important principle.
If the Chief Electoral Officer thought National was corrupt it would have reported them to the police for corrupt practice. It did not.
If the Solicitor General though National’s TV ads or spin doctors were corrupt it would have reported them. It did not.
If the Auditor General thought that National’s payments were corrupt it would again have reported them. It did not.
Read the report:
I have found the nature and extent of electioneering advertising expenditure… disturbing. In this regard, party-generated advertising produced by Leaders’ offices was of most concern.. I find it hard to accept that, … behaviour did not change.
I was particularly disappointed to find that the Service paid for significant amounts of newspaper advertising by some parties in the last week before the General Election. That advertising was incontrovertibly of an electioneering nature, and I could not discern a legitimate parliamentary purpose for it.
It is not my role to comment on what further action, if any, should be taken about the expenditure that was outside the scope of the appropriations.
The report is as damning as it could possibly be without overstepping its bounds. Based only on this report the Speaker, and Leader and Chairman of the Labour party must take personal responsibility. In the whole context: that’s a start, but absolutely nowhere near enough.
October 16th, 2006 at 10:53 am
it is clear the AG only become aware the 2005 pledge card was funded from parliamentary funds because it carried the parliamentary crest, a new requirement added after the 2002 election … everyone thought previous pledge cards had been funded by the labour party as they are quite clearly electionerring
and Kevin Brady was only appointed AG in 2002, so was only getting his feet under the table during the election that year … this is the first election when he has had full opportunity to utilise his powers
October 16th, 2006 at 11:06 am
Daryl, what a truly fatuous equation. The identities of the editor and senior editorial staff of the Dominion Post are matters of public record, and I’d also note that Russell frequently links to anon-bloggers like No Right Turn’s Idiot/Savant. But even Russell freely admits he very seldom – if ever – allows anonymous guest posts to Public Address, and no regular contributors have done so under pseudonyms.
And you point is what, exactly? Would it be too much to ask for you to address the argument rather than try and generate some faux conspiracy? I agreed to publish the piece because I thought it was well-written and strongly argued. And I accepted the need for anonimity in the circumstances.
The local right-wing blogosphere and its comments columns are dominated by people who use pseudonyms, and I recall some of those people arguing trenchantly their right to do that, to protect jobs or whatever. I really cannot see the difference.
BTW, I might add that I’ve been critical of Labour’s behaviour all along, and said repeatedly that they needed to repay the money, even if the report generates some troubling issues, which I think it does.
Cheers,
RB
October 16th, 2006 at 11:38 am
I’ve always thought that “Russell Brown” is a pseudonym for some pinko commie bastard working out of Pete Hodgson’s office. If Russell’s going to use an anonymous person delivering a pseudo-legal opinion, he should at least state that person’s legal credentials, and the broad reasons for the anonymity. A reasonable explanation might be: “Rex works in Crown Law.” Or: “Rex is a public law specialist working within a government department.” Or, more likely: “Rex works as legal adviser to Labour’s governing council.”
It is totally partisan of Rex to suggest somehow National’s staffing should have been investigated by the Auditor-General, but Labour staffing should not. It’s a red herring. Rex knows it to be.
Labour receives a massive benefit by virtue of incumbency. A large proportion of Labour’s ministerial advisers–press secretaries, executive office staff, etc–were working on Labour’s campaign. Helen Clark’s own chief of staff even guided Labour’s national board on what the campaign should include, and signed off on Labour’s use of the pledge card.
There is nothing that can be practically done about that–governing parties always have access to more staffing resources; but to claim that National somehow had a massive staffing advantage over Labour is a deliberate lie.
October 16th, 2006 at 11:42 am
So insolent prick is your real name then?
October 16th, 2006 at 11:45 am
It’s always nice to see ‘Insolent Prick’ blast his way through the unintentional irony barrier.
Craij, my point wasn’t about Russell Brown posting an anonymous article – it’s not terribly difficult to guess why someone speaking out on this issue might want to maintain their anonymity – my point is that DPF saw fit to cast doubt upon it’s credibilty by pointing out that it’s anonymous, while he links to similarly anonymous postings on a daily basis without querying their motives or credibilty – presumably because he approves of their sentiments.
October 16th, 2006 at 12:09 pm
It’s as much my real name as yours is, Sonic.
Danyl, my key point was not about Rex’s anonymity. That’s not the issue. His key points are all red herrings: he asserts that National had some massive advantage by using parliamentary resources on non-advertising, but electioneering activity.
You cannot possibly claim that National has some taxpayer-funded advantage over Labour. Labour’s incumbency gives it taxpayer-funded resources in Ministerial and Parliamentary Services that far dwarf all the other political parties combined.
Do you really think Heather Simpson did no electioneering activity as Helen Clark’s taxpayer-funded Chief of Staff?
October 16th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
No, it’s a name for some guy mooching around his house in Pt Chev wondering when some bugger’s going to pay on that last round of invoices. It’s quite some time since anyone paid me a salary.
Anyway, glad to see you acknowledge that it’s not the pseudonym that’s the issue – after devoting more than half your post to whining about it -but the debate.
Cheers,
RB
October 16th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
“It’s as much my real name as yours is, Sonic’
But I’m not the one moaning about anonymous contributions am I.
October 16th, 2006 at 1:36 pm
Danyl – editorials are known to represent the position of the editor who is known.
In some circumstances, identity is not important. NRT is an example of that. But when you purport to claim better knowledge of the law than both the Solictor-General and Auditor-General it is important. If Rex is the Deputy Solictor-General that would be different to if Rex is a non lawyer who used to work in the Labour Research Unit.
October 16th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
I wasn’t moaning about it, shithead. I simply don’t think it’s credible that the author is not politically motivated, or that the author doesn’t favour the Labour party. Russell claimed on the blog that Rex is politically neutral. That doesn’t stack up.
No politically neutral person could seriously argue that National has some taxpayer-funded resource advantage over the incumbent Labour Government.
Rex’s column is Labour Party spin. He can be anonymous all he likes–I don’t give a shit, but it’s downright dishonest to claim that he’s not aligned to the Labour Party.
October 16th, 2006 at 2:04 pm
Prick – a loose familiarity with the article under discussion might make you look like slightly less of a drip. (You’ll still have a long way to go, but Rome wasn’t built in a day.)
You claim that ‘Rex’:
But if we take a look at the actual article we see things like this:
For what it’s worth, I think that Labours pledge-card spend up was crooked as hell and I’m glad they didn’t get away with it – but I also think Brady’s ruling is pretty damn weird.
October 16th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
Innocent question of the day.
If the Labour Party were sufficiently convinced that the Pledge Card was legit that they felt they could ignore the (by now very well known) list of authorities that disagreed both BEFORE and after the election, WHY did they need to hang their hat on an opinion from Chapman Tripp, produced some 12 months AFTER the election at the Speaker’s request (and paid for once again by the taxpayer).
Somehow it just doesn’t seem to add up and too obviously so. What am I missing?
October 16th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
Innocent question of the day.
If the Labour Party were sufficiently convinced that the Pledge Card was legit that they felt they could ignore the (by now very well known) list of authorities that disagreed both BEFORE and after the election, WHY did they need to hang their hat on an opinion from Chapman Tripp, produced some 12 months AFTER the election at the Speaker’s request (and paid for once again by the taxpayer).
Somehow it just doesn’t seem to add up and too obviously so. What am I missing?
October 16th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
Second Innocent question:
Under what circumstances does the Speaker find the need to go outside the resources of the Crown to get a legal opinion. Is it only when it is inconvenient to accept the Crown Solicitor’s opinion?
Make that questions 2 and 3
October 17th, 2006 at 6:09 pm
Isn’t Rex a dogs name, probably another one of Dear Leaders poodles.
Hey! On behalf of Rexs everywhere: Bite me ;-P
And no, I’m not the one in question.
October 18th, 2006 at 7:20 am
“I wasn’t moaning about it, shithead. I simply don’t think it’s credible that the author is not politically motivated, or that the author doesn’t favour the Labour party.”
I’m sorry old Prick, but some people can think outside some narrow world of political allegience and look at issues independently, critically and, quite obviously, far more intelligently than those partaking in the Kiwiblog sitcom.
October 18th, 2006 at 7:40 am
Russell Brown wrote:
And you point is what, exactly? Would it be too much to ask for you to address the argument rather than try and generate some faux conspiracy? I agreed to publish the piece because I thought it was well-written and strongly argued. And I accepted the need for anonimity in the circumstances.
The local right-wing blogosphere and its comments columns are dominated by people who use pseudonyms, and I recall some of those people arguing trenchantly their right to do that, to protect jobs or whatever. I really cannot see the difference.
Oh, Get. Over. Yourself. I’m well on the record here, and elsewhere, with my very low opinion of people who can’t stand the basic accountability of putting their real names to their opinions – and that includes right-wingers. It also includes MSM outlets who print serious attacks on the integrity and competence of others with nary an on the record source to be seen.
You can publish whatever you wish, but don’t be so damn precious when I point out a pretty big deviation from your own practice and simply affirm my tendency not to place much store in people who attack the integrity of others from behind the cloak of anonymity.
October 18th, 2006 at 9:28 am
You’re a tame rightist Craig, and therefore you have nothing to fear. Look what has happened to the EBs.
October 18th, 2006 at 4:25 pm
What I would like to know is, what did Don spend his leader’s budget on in the 3 months prior to the last election? Was it polling companies and election advisors? Does anyone know? Does anyone care?
October 18th, 2006 at 5:19 pm
It’s actually no-one’s business so long as it was legal.
October 18th, 2006 at 10:26 pm
If it was legal then you should be able to tell us what it was.
October 19th, 2006 at 1:30 am
Fitzsimons says it all, and I think somewhat better; a choice excerpt:
If staff are not allowed to prepare responses to questions from the public and media about our policy positions, it is difficult to see what they can do in the period after the house rises for the election. There is no parliamentary business for them to assist with. Parliament is in recess then to allow the democratic process of electing representatives to occur, at which time the overwhelming public interest is in learning factually what policies the parties are proposing. No-one has ever told us all staff must be sacked the day the house rises.
And to Redbaiter:
Its a strange thing about leftists. They seem so incapable of accepting their own partisanship, and so often write here as if their adjudications on matters political are examples of the most perfect objectivity. When they never are. This strange delusion, deep in the leftist psyche, is what makes so many of their comments so utterly worthless.
You seem to be caught in a strange world of black and white, where everyone who disagrees with you is a “worthless leftie”.
October 19th, 2006 at 1:34 am
Fitzsimons says it all, and I think somewhat better; a choice excerpt:
If staff are not allowed to prepare responses to questions from the public and media about our policy positions, it is difficult to see what they can do in the period after the house rises for the election. There is no parliamentary business for them to assist with. Parliament is in recess then to allow the democratic process of electing representatives to occur, at which time the overwhelming public interest is in learning factually what policies the parties are proposing. No-one has ever told us all staff must be sacked the day the house rises.
And to Redbaiter:
Its a strange thing about leftists. They seem so incapable of accepting their own partisanship, and so often write here as if their adjudications on matters political are examples of the most perfect objectivity. When they never are. This strange delusion, deep in the leftist psyche, is what makes so many of their comments so utterly worthless.
You seem to be caught in a strange world of black and white, where everyone who disagrees with you is a “worthless leftie”.
October 19th, 2006 at 1:36 am
Just in case anyone is wondering, the above was posted twice deliberately, as a protest to web servers that take bleeding ages to reply and when they do issue ambigious, empty responses.
October 19th, 2006 at 7:58 am
It’s actually no-one’s business so long as it was legal.
October 19th, 2006 at 7:50 pm
On the basis that’s it’s legal until anyone investigates?
What if an/this AG rules that payment of staff out of PS requires them not to engage in anything which might be seen as electioneering, whether it has any PS meaning or not – and this means whatever the AG determines it to mean after the election?
Given the consequences of that for election caps etc …
October 30th, 2006 at 11:26 pm
Why validate back to 1989 when the statute of limitation is 7 years, is it possible the reason is fraud as I understand this is outside the statute.
October 30th, 2006 at 11:38 pm
Why validate back to 1989 when the statute of limitation is 7 years, is it possible the reason is fraud as I understand this is outside the statute.